Bail cannot be granted in sexual assault cases against minors without significant scrutiny of charges and evidence; serious errors by the High Court necessitated cancellation.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(1), 6, 9(g), and 10 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2), and 352 - Bail granted by High Court set aside due to serious concerns regarding nature of charges against accused of gang-rape of a minor - It was contended that statements recorded under Section 183 and medical evidence support victim's claims of repeated assaults and intimidation. (Paras 11, 12, 16, 18)

(B) Bail - Considerations - Courts must weigh the gravity of the offence and potential for intimidation of witnesses - High Court failed to notice the prima facie evidence against the accused, resulting in erroneous discretion exercised in granting bail. (Para 19)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the High Court's grant of bail to Respondent accused of gang-raping a minor, emphasizing the grave nature of allegations and influencing factors against victim, including intimidation post-bail.

Findings of Court:
The grant of bail was found to be manifestly erroneous and set aside, with directions for the accused's prompt surrender.

Issues: The main issues involved the severity of charges, the credibility of claims made by the minor victim, and the implications of bail on societal justice and victim safety.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that bail in such serious cases must consider the overwhelming evidence and potential victim intimidation.

Result: Appeal allowed, bail cancelled.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The Supreme Court has emphasized that bail cannot be granted in sexual assault cases involving minors without thorough scrutiny of the charges and evidence, especially when the allegations are grave and involve serious offences such as gang rape, threats, and recording of the acts for blackmail purposes (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court found that the High Court erred in granting bail without adequately considering the gravity and seriousness of the charges, the prima facie evidence, and the potential risk to the victim, including intimidation and trauma post-bail (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence, including victim statements, medico-legal reports, and other material, establish a prima facie case of repeated sexual assault, threatening with a firearm, and recording the acts, which are grave offences under the relevant laws (!) (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted that the filing of a chargesheet does not automatically preclude bail, but the court must consider the nature of the offence, the evidence, and the likelihood of witness intimidation or tampering. Failure to do so constitutes a serious error (!) (!) .
The Court expressed concern over the post-bail conduct of the accused, including threatening and intimidating the victim, which underscores the risk of further harm and the need to prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses (!) (!) (!) .
The order granting bail was found to be perverse, unreasonable, and contrary to legal principles governing serious offences against minors, necessitating its cancellation and the accused’s surrender to custody (!) (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that in cases involving sexual offences against minors, especially those with evidence of coercion, intimidation, and recording of acts, bail should be granted only with extreme caution, considering the potential impact on the victim and the integrity of the trial process (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court directed the accused to surrender within a specified period and emphasized the importance of expeditious trial proceedings, ensuring that the process is fair, sensitive, and not oppressive (!) (!) .

In summary, the Supreme Court underscored the necessity of careful judicial scrutiny in granting bail in serious sexual offence cases against minors, particularly when there is prima facie evidence of heinous acts, intimidation, or threats, and highlighted that errors in such considerations can lead to cancellation of bail orders to uphold justice and victim protection.

JUDGMENT

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court” in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025, whereby the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 – accused in connection with FIR No. 426/2024 registered with Police Station Kandhla, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh for offences punishable under Sections 65 (1), 74, 137(2) 352 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , For short, “BNSS” and Sections 5 (l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , For short, “POCSO Act”.

3. The case of the appellant as projected in this appeal is as follows:

3.1. Respondent No. 2 by name Arjun – accused was known to the minor victim for about six months prior to the incident. As per the statement of the minor victim, Respondent No. 2 repeatedly established physical relations with her by threatening her and pointing a locally made firearm (katta) at her. It is further stated that along with Respondent No. 2, his friends namely Goldi, Amit, Rupak and Vedansh used to abuse and molest the minor victim and also attempted to establish physical relations with her.

3.2. On 01.12.2024 at around 05.30 p.m., when the minor victim was walking near her residence, the accused persons Arjun and Amit abducted her on their motorcycle, again molested her and ultimately abandoned her at Baraut Bus Stand, from where she contacted her uncle using a stranger’s mobile phone. Thereafter, the minor victim narrated the entire incident including the sexual assault committed by the accused persons over the past six months to her family members. Immediately, the family members of the minor victim rushed to the police station to lodge a complaint. However, the police failed to register the FIR on 01.12.2024 and instead advised the minor victim and her family members to compromise and settle the matter with the accused persons. Ultimately, FIR No. 426/2024 came to be registered on 02.12.2024 under Sections 75(2), 79 and 137(2) of the BNSS and Sections 9 (g) and 10 of the POCSO Act against five accused persons including Respondent No. 2.

3.3. During the course of investigation, on 03.12.2024, the statements of the minor victim and her uncle were recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, For short, “Cr.P.C”). The investigating officer obtained a certificate from Inter College, Ailum, District Shamli, certifying the date of birth of the minor victim as 18.07.2010, which established that she was around 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. On 05.12.2024, the statement of the minor victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 Cr.P.C.) before the learned Magistrate, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, on 08.12.2024 the minor victim was medically examined and a medico-legal examination report was obtained, which revealed the gravity of the sexual offence committed against her.

3.4. Due to the influence exerted by the family members of the accused, Respondent No. 2 was not arrested immediately after registration of the FIR dated 02.12.2024 and was arrested only on 03.01.2025. Subsequently, he filed bail application which came to be dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Shamli on 13.02.2025.

3.5. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed chargesheet on 19.02.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 65 (1), 74, 137(2) and 352 of the BNSS and 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 approached the High Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025. By the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025, the High Court allowed the said application and enlarged Respondent No. 2 on bail, subject to certain conditions. Feeling aggrieved, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 18

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION X – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER – Respondent8173 of 2025

Bail cannot be granted in sexual assault cases against minors without significant scrutiny of charges and evidence; serious errors by the High Court necessitated cancellation.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
X – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER – Respondent
8173 of 2025